inn

subject-provinces by an imperial centre in London for
the benefit of the mother country, in the manner of
the sixteenth-century Spanish Empire, but are bar-
gains made between equally sovereign nations, in
which the Dominion of Great Britain does not neces-
sarily come off best.
The economic importance of the area which, dur-
ing the last sixty or seventy years, has become de-
imperialised, 'unconquered5, is infinitely greater than
that of the area of fresh conquests. Yet while the
economically less important has been the subject of
a vast amount of attention of the kind described,
the more important had been all but completely
ignored. It would be possible to mention a score
of American books in which it is taken for granted
that the annexation of the Philippines was due to
the pressure of capitalist interest. Not one of those
authors explains how this thesis of capitalist pres-
sure compelling an imperialist policy is to be recon-
ciled with the quiet granting at a later date of complete
independence to the Islands. Similarly, many writers
have explained the Boer War as dictated by London
financiers; they have failed to explain why, if the
financiers desired and were able to dictate the Boer
War and the conquest of Boer territory, they did not
desire or were unable to prevent, the granting of a
degree of independence to Boer territory which ren-
dered impossible further dictation from London. The
granting of tariff-making rights to the Indian Legis-
lature raises similar questions concerning the real